Date: 20010604
Docket: A-177-97
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 185
BETWEEN:
RON S. SOURANI
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto, Ontario, on Friday, May 25, 2001
JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday, June 4, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MALONE J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20010604
Docket: A-177-97
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 185
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
RON S. SOURANI
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
[1] This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated February 4, 1997. This judgment had previously come before this panel on June 7 and 8, 2000 in Rivers v. Canada, (appeal in Vasiga) 2000 D.T.C. 6405 (F.C.A.).
[2] In the Vasiga appeal, this panel found an absence of procedural fairness in the proceedings leading to the February 4, 1997 Tax Court judgment. As these same proceedings and judgment involved Mr. Sourani, his appeal in this case should also be allowed and the matter should be remitted to a different judge of the Tax Court of Canada for redetermination.
[3] For the guidance of the Tax Court, I would make the following observations. Mr. Sourani argued before us that the counsel who acted for him in the Tax Court proceedings did so without his authority. He made this argument because of written agreements dated April 28, 1995 and May 25, 1995 between his counsel and counsel for the Minister which deal with a number of appeals including his own, which limited the scope of matters which could be argued in his Tax Court appeal. Mr. Sourani says that his lawyer made these agreements without his authority.
[4] In this appeal, Mr. Sourani conceded that he reviewed and authorized the filing of a Notice of Appeal in the Tax Court of Canada on his behalf. A lawyer is a client's authorized agent in all matters that may reasonably be expected to arise for decision in the particular proceeding for which he has been retained. Mr. Sourani authorized the filing of a Notice of Appeal and the lawyer that did so must be taken to have had the authority to make agreements and compromises in the litigation that followed from the filing of the Notice of Appeal. As between Mr. Sourani and his lawyer, there may have been a limitation on the lawyer's authority, but that was not binding on the Tax Court Judge or counsel for the Minister who had no knowledge of any such limitation (Scherer v. Paletta, [1966] 2 O.R. 524, at 526-527 (C.A.)).
[5] Had any want of authority been raised before the Tax Court Judge, he could have refused to proceed on the agreements. Indeed, in this case the Tax Court Judge did inquire as to whether Mr. Sourani's lawyer had authority to sign the agreements and was assured by counsel that he did.
[6] Mr. Sourani's counsel had the ostensible authority to sign the agreements dated April 28, 1995 and May 25, 1995. Mr. Sourani is accordingly bound by those agreements and the authority of his lawyer to enter into them is not an issue for redetermination by the Tax Court. I make no comment on whether Mr. Sourani may have recourse against his counsel in any other forum.
[7] Mr. Sourani's appeal is an "Investment Club" appeal. Proceedings on redetermination by the Tax Court shall be limited to the matters raised in the Minister's motion for judgment in the Tax Court dated July 5, 1996, as they pertain to Investment Club appeals.
[8] There should be no award of costs.
(B. Malone)
J.A.
I agree
A.M. Linden
I agree
Marshall Rothstein